Why? She's not a private citizen resisting a government that is trampling on her rights. She's a public official violating the constitutional rights of the citizens she was elected to serve. Big difference.

No, you can't "blame" them. Their idea of federalism was nothing like what we are seeing today.

Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madison, John Jay, William Patterson, John Dickinson, and Roger Sherman were all Federalists., though I doubt they would have approved of the obscene growth and power of the fed gov today.

We are still talking reality here, yes? Any society is going to have its rules and customs. A State is closer to the people they represent, they are more directly accountable to those people. In this way, a State knows what its people want, whether they give it to them is another question.

The Founders?
You'll need to explain that to me.

Absolutely!

I think that we both might be right on this. It was slavery, the Mexican-American War, and in the beginning a poll tax.

Yes, this issue would be much clearer if the government, state and Federal, would just get out of the licensing business altogether. And way beyond just marriage licenses. This is simply a contract between two consenting adults. The government should only get involved, as in any other instance, after the fact, if one of the parties breaks the contract, and it requires a court to sort it out.

Gay rights trump any other civil rights. So it seems. Could her religious rights been accommodated by having someone else issue the stupid piece of paper? If a federal employee has an injury preventing them from performing all the duties of a position except one of the duties, isn't it against the law NOT to accommodate them? Why not it this case? Why is her civil rights lesser? To advance a political agenda?

She would have been jailed at the Hilton Hotel, if they still wanted press the point. Or we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

Simple answer: Politics. Religion is a very very strong part of Kentucky culture. Any politician opposed to this "prisoner of conscience" faces potential defeat at the polls. Note the way Huckabee is seeking to align himself with the Clerk. Especially note how Rand Paul (who faces re-election to the Senate in November 2016) is aligning himself on this issue. He may already have given up on the presidency, but he surely wants to hold on to his day job for another six years. Thus he is echoing the "religious freedom" mantra.

Federalism leads to this type of "conflict" often in a variety of contexts. Blame the founders.

You mention "recording" of the marriage contract. What if the County Recorder refuses to accept for filing any such contract between a same sex couple or a mixed race couple on religious grounds? Doesn't that lead to the same conundrum we face now?

Why do you think the locals would always be more just? I'm thinking of the slave states and HOAs.

I think it was a war, not slavery, IIRC.

The best solution is to get government out of marriage entirely and eliminate all tax-favored status, credits, etc...

That being said, if I were the Rowan County Clerk, I would tell the court she is ready to comply with the court's demands. After getting out of jail, create a sign at the county clerk's office, saying that the court's new definition of marriage is now in force and the following relationships will now receive "licenses" at the office:

1) Man/woman
2) Man/man
3) Woman/woman
4) 1 Woman / 2 or more men
5) 1 Man / 2 or more women
6) 2 or more men / 2 or more women
7) Man/cousin
8) Woman/cousin
9) Man/mother
10) Woman/father
11) Man/granny
12) Woman/grandpa
13) Man/sister
14) Man/computer
15) Woman/smartphone
16) Man/game console
17) Woman/horse
18) Woman/dog
19) Man/dog
20) Man/goat
21) Woman/cat

Per the court's new, wider definition of marriage, the only requirements for a marriage license in Rowan County are:

1) At least 1 adult human 18 years old or older
2) At least 1 legal resident of Rowan County
3) Non-humans can be of any age
4) All humans must express their love for each other
5) Non-humans are not required to express love

Thank you funu50401. From ancient times the union that we refer to as, "marriage" has been all about the secular concepts of property and progeny; and more often than we romantic westerners like to admit, it was primarily a business or political arrangement. People can romanticize the concept and dress it up in all kinds of emotional trappings, but a pig in lipstick is still a pig. The way I see it adults at age of majority (regardless of biological genitalia assignment) should not need a state license or permission to enter into a legally binding Domestic Contract should they decide to pool resources and perhaps also take on the joint responsibility of rearing children to an age of independence. On the flip side of that coin people who believe that the sanction or blessings of a divine being will enhance their union should be perfectly free to have a covenant ceremony in addition to a domestic contractual agreement. The only time state court participation should be needed is if there is legal dispute arising from the dissolution of a domestic contract, i.e. one party attempts theft or to take unfair advantage of the other. Anyone who has ever experienced a divorce in which there is a contentious property settlement can attest to the fact that it is all about business.

America today is in the same position the founders were vis-a-vis King George III of England. We, like they, have been backed into a corner whereby our choices are limited to kneel and obey, or, resist and rebel. This woman has chosen to resist. We should all be applauding her courage.

If you don't have kids, legal marriage isn't that good a deal really. The only thing marriage does is easier and cheaper transmission of wealth upon your death to a spouse if your estate is over $5m. Death taxes should be abolished anyway and then marriage is an anachronism. With the rate of divorce at about 50%. Why are they trying to protect marriage anyway

My knowledge of law is scant, but I recall (as the hingepoint of several fiction plots) that a marriage license is not marriage. It gives permission, it does not marry the two people. (I agree that one should not have to have this permission; I am just trying to state what the current situation is.). Two people can get a marriage license and then decide not to get married.

I think that there is a difference between using authority to make something happen and using authority to not prohibit something from happening. I wonder if the clerk considered that she was 'marrying' these people, when actually she was just allowing the couples to decide whether or not they wanted to get married. (Granted, they probably would have.) Her activity was a link in the chain, not the whole chain.

My opinion: And no government should be able to prevent people from getting married. That is not anyone's business but their own.

Jan

I haven't seen a single article claiming that she was following state law in this instance. It was all religion.

AJAshinoff is correct, the Supreme court made a ruling on a state law's constitutionality only, they did not make or change any law. Therefore state law is still on the books as KY law, it just cannot be enforced due to the ruling. That said, the KY law did not change any law that said there was a prior legal right for gay marriage.

They only person following the law in all of this is the clerk!

Typical of the myriad of laws passed. They conflict with one another to the extent that it leads to confusion between the Federal and State laws, not to mention interference with religious practice which is collateral damage. The more laws we pass, the stupider we get.

...busy spending taxpayer money, of course.

We may suffer Consequences, But what authority should we really be following!

Matthew 12:30 KJV
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad .

Acts 4:19
But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

Acts 5:29 KJV
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said , We ought to obey God rather than men.

John 12:43 KJV
For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.